Saturday, November 8, 2014

The Distinction Between the Architectural Styles and Methodologies of the Greek Mainland and the Greek Western Colonies in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries BC

There is a distinction
between the architectural styles and methodologies of the Greek mainland and
that of the Greek western colonies in the fifth and sixth centuries BC,
particularly in the sacred structures and sculptures.There are different reasons presented in the
historical and archaeological community as to why these distinctions in the
architectural style between the mainland and the western colonies exist.This essay will assess and look into the
possible reasons for these distinctions from the perspective of what the
distinctions actually are in the sacred buildings and sculptures, and at the
possible implications of geo-political influence on causing these changes to
occur.The majority of the focus will be
on the two cities of Selinus and Acragas, but examples from other contemporary
western colonial settlements will be used as necessary.

The colonies of the western
Greek world were founded by more than just the mainland Greeks.This was alluded to by Dominguez when
discussing Acragas and stating that it was of mixed foundation, or people from
different countries.[1]This could help in explaining why Mertens
stated that the first colonists in the seventh and sixth centuries BC had no
established tradition of building and craftsmanship.[2]Further, in talking about the concepts of
form, he states that only the general concepts from the colonists’ homelands
could be transplanted to the new country, thereby indicating that there were
multiple origination sites for a singular new city in the west.It would stand to reason that the growing
population of the Mediterranean world in the seventh to the fifth centuries BC
would begin to look for more room and new places to settle, so this line of
thinking is sound and plausible.Thus,
the presence of multi-cultural people settling one area or city would create
differences and concessions to how things were developed, made, and designed to
that of a homogenous single country such as mainland Greece.

In the late sixth century
BC, the Euboic-Attic monetary system was adopted in Sicily, in the Dorian area
and areas that surrounded it such as Selinus, Acragas, and Syracuse.De Miro believes that this indicates that
relationships were being intensified.[3]Indeed, having a unified monetary system in
place in a greater area would indicate that there was a sense of cooperation
and reliance upon each other, but the deviation from that which was used in
mainland Greece could also indicate a break in that way of thinking, and thus
could be considered as another symptom of how the west was developing
differently.In the vein of monetary
reasoning being behind some of the reasons for the delineation between
architectural styles of the mainland and the west, it is worth noting that the
colonists were looking for wide expanses of good agricultural land.[4]This would help them to be self-sufficient
and eventually prosper.However, Di Vita
believes that it is hazardous to suppose that the first partition of all the
territory acquired by the colonists was of an agricultural nature, with the
exception of a few areas of common use such as the agora, the temene of the
gods, and the necropolis.[5]This viewpoint would explain and be confirmed
by the fact that the earliest cult sites known in Selinus and Acragas are
outside the colony’s centre.They were
placed in such a way that they would not interfere with both the property that
was owned by individuals as well as that of the community as a whole.[6]Which leads to an interesting point; how
much did the lay of the land and pre-existing indigenous structures shape the
layout of the cities and the architecture that was used?

Selinus was founded on the
southern coast and as such was the westernmost Greek city in Sicily.[7]The colonial poleis of Sicily and Magna
Graecia were very proud of where they had placed themselves as well as the
elaborate planned urban arrangement that was a completely new thing in the ancient
world.[8]After Selinus was planned and completed,
there was some type of large-scale destruction, which Di Vita speculates was an
earthquake, which occurred and required the city to be redesigned and
modified.This was carried out around
560 and 460BC.The majority of the work
that was done was carried out in the sacred areas on the acropolis and the
eastern hills.This provides an
excellent example of how the natural landscape was altered in order to
accommodate what they western Greeks wanted to do.The hill at this time was terraced by way of
a 10 metre tall retaining wall that was backfilled with 25000 – 30000 cubic
metres of sand and forming two levels.[9]Clearly then, the natural land didn’t stop
the western Greeks from build what and how they wanted!

The new geographical and
geological conditions naturally influenced the building techniques and methods
since the materials available were different to that of the mainland.[10]For example, Sicily is poorer when it comes
to robust stone used in building and there is no marble anywhere.This would naturally encourage a different
technique of building and shaping the sacred structures.One such different technique was found with
the discovery of architectural terracottas used in the roof decoration that
date from early 600BC to late 500BC.[11]Terracotta wasn’t just used as a decorative
bit of working on the roofs, however.In
Magna Graecia terracotta gained a place of particular importance in
representative monumental buildings.[12]In the sixth century BC terracotta became the
most important decorative part of the system.

Other distinctions in the
build methods are explained by the first generation of colonists using some of
the simple construction methods of the indigenous population.The more prestigious buildings were still
build mostly according to the mainland Greek typology, i.e. as elongated
megara, but the technique of using posts and pise that the colonists employed
was not known on the mainland.[13]It would also appear at times that there was
some assimilation of the pre-existing indigenous rites into the cultists that
were based more on the natural elements or phenomena.[14]

Continuing on in examining
the way that location shaped the architecture and building of the western
Greeks, the religious practices come into play.The deity for whom a particular sanctuary was dedicated to and the
location within the confines of the colony’s territory determined the function
of the sacred building, according to Greco.[15]This could be why in Cumae the temple of
Apollo was placed on the southeast corner of the terrace, even though it
required the levelling of an indigenous village that was already there.[16]The location placement of a sacred site
appears to have been just as important in the layout of a building as that of
the architectural design.However, it
does not seem that the architecture of the buildings were always chosen with
the most religious of ideals in mind, but that of glorifying the builder in
question.

De
Miro, E.(1996).‘Greek Sculpture in Sicily in the Classical
Period’ in Carratelli, G. P. ed., The
Western Greeks.Pp. 413 – 420.

Di
Vita, A.(1990).‘Town planning in the Greek colonies of
Sicily from the time of their foundations to the Punic wars.’in Greek
Colonists and Native Populations: Proceedings of the First Australian Congress
of Classical Archaeology Held in Honour of Emeritus Professor A. D. Trendall,
Sydney, 9-14 July 1985, Descoeudres, Jean-Paul.Pp. 343 – 363.

Mertens,
D.(1990).‘Some principal features of West Greek
colonial architecture.’ in Greek
Colonists and Native Populations: Proceedings of the First Australian Congress
of Classical Archaeology Held in Honour of Emeritus Professor A. D. Trendall,
Sydney, 9-14 July 1985, Descoeudres, Jean-Paul.Pp. 373 – 383.